MD11LuxuryLinr From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1385 posts, RR: 15 Reply 3, posted (10 years 4 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3903 times:
I remember the 727s and 732s from the seventies and eighties being extremely loud. Growing up 5 miles from the airport, right in the approach/departure end of PHL's main runways, our house was always rumbling and rattling whenever those birds would "sweep", by especially on departure of course. Damn I miss those days!
As far as most powerful, it has to be the MD11 with a trio of 4462s.
Caution wake turbulence, you are following a heavy jet.
L.1011 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 2209 posts, RR: 10 Reply 5, posted (10 years 4 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3877 times:
Today's widebodies (most powerful engine available-total thrust at full power)
A couple interesting observations- All 777s lead the competing Airbus in total thrust. A330s lead the initial A340s in engine power as well. This is odd to me because the A340 was supposed to be the longer-ranged airplane.
NWA742 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (10 years 4 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3632 times:
The An-225 is pushed by six 55,000 lbs thrust engines I believe. That'd be 330,000 lbs of thrust alltogether. Why hasn't that been mentioned?
I think the focus is mainly on commercial airliners if you didn't notice. Also, the An-225 has been mentioned, see Reply 2.
For most powerful takeoff, in my history of travel it would have to be a lightly-loaded 744. I was on a Northwest red-eye a few years back, the 744 was replacing a DC-9 for some reason, and we had probably 20 passengers max. Since it was a short flight, they probably didn't tip off the tanks either. I swear that was the most powerful takeoff in my history of flying. A passenger across the aisle from me was asking me jokingly if this was a 747 or a fighter jet.
Also, the 717 and 757 are rockets even when fully loaded. A fully loaded 744 takes awhile to rotate, but whenever that starts, you still can't seem to believe that thing's power. The 777 is one heck of a powerful aircraft too, but I don't think it matches the 744.
NWA742 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (10 years 4 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 3518 times:
ROTFLOL!! That made my day!
Anyways, I was in a CX A343 and takeoff was "elegant", to put it into words. The rest of the jets either have your head push down to your stomach as it takes off.
Why are we even discussing the A343 in a thread "Most powerful aircraft"?
Although it's certainly a good, elegant looking bird, it's power-to-weight ratio is one of the lowest in modern airliners, hence it's takeoff performance is nothing to gawk at.
Also, you say "rest of the jets push your head down to your stomach as it takes off" as if it's a bad thing. I think most of us love that feeling, because it really demonstrates that you're on a powerful machine. I wouldn't want to feel like I was riding in an air-bus
Kevs From Australia, joined Jun 2003, 46 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (10 years 4 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3488 times:
I don't have any travel experience on any A330 or A340
But based on my previous travels on SQ 744 and 772,
The 772 take off is more impressive, I was like sitting in
a sports car with my body pushed back into the seat..
I also tried both A320 and A321, there take offs are
more gentle... is A330 or A340 have the same 'gentle'
From all my travel experience with A320, A321, B744, B772
I can tell those Airbuses provided a more comfortable cabin
especially with much less engine noise.
However, Boeing jets give me a feel like I am really flying!!
I like to fly and I like it raw!!!
NWA742 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 20, posted (10 years 4 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3441 times:
I guess that single-engined aircraft must therefore carry the least risk of engine failure.
I don't know if that will work with singles. But when comparing 2 vs. 4 engined aircraft, the quad would be twice as likely to lose an engine because it has twice the engines operating at the same time. Simple as that.
So if an A340 loses three engines, it suddenly becomes twice as safe as an A330. Hmm...
Kevs From Australia, joined Jun 2003, 46 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (10 years 4 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3438 times:
I don't believe in those slogans like 4 engines 4 long haul..
in most case, those aircraft accidents are due to human factors rather
than mechanical problem, such as poor maintainence, human errors.....
4 engines, mean it doubles the chance of a human error to occurs when
compares with any 2 engines aircraft.
ERJ135 From Australia, joined Nov 2000, 676 posts, RR: 1 Reply 22, posted (10 years 4 months 5 days ago) and read 3387 times:
I don't mean to be flippant but just how common is a multiple engine failure?
I certainly wouldn't be saying that a four engined aircraft is more likely to suffer a shutdown at all, but in any case lets then hypothesize the likely scenario of a double engine failure and ask would you rather fly a 747 with 2 engines operating or a 777 with no engines after each has lost two?
But back to the original topic, what about Concorde? But then it's built for speed isn't it and not really all that powerful compared to a bulk freighter, so it must be the AN225, nothing flying produces as much power as it has to just to fly. But wait it has six engines! Can it keep all engines running long enough?
As for the A340? This aircraft is often the butt of jokes for the supposed reason that it has no power or insufficient power and it climbs slow and flies slower than some other aircraft. Funny enough I've never seen one unable to get of the ground for lack of power have you? So this fuel miser seems quite adequate for it's function. Is Thai really replacing 777 services with the new A340-600 because of engine reliability? Surely not!